-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 61
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
type
instead of ref
?
#23
Comments
I also want to stress the obligatory https://www.quora.com/Is-W3Schools-a-reliable-source here I don't think we should base our decisions on that source. Also there are apparently other issues with xsd.exe handling ref incorrectly (although not very similar to this case) https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44028046/how-to-use-xsd-exe-with-attributegroup-ref I personally have mixed experience with automated codegen from XSD. In my understanding, but I'm not an XML/XSD expert, and I know @berlotti has consulted people infinitely more knowledgeable than me on this regard, it's as you hinted on in the other issue, in this case mostly a matter of taste. When you use Another difference, but not relevant, but what's described in your table, is that |
It is an explicit choice to use the xs:restriction as is. We don't want to create an IDS restriction of the same type as an xs:restriction, but use the actual xs:restriction. This brings a lot of added value with the ability to use multiple toolkits for xs:restriction saving implementation time and adding consistency. Combining two namespaces was a deliberate choice. The use of two namespaces in the XSD is not common, but valid. Closing this issue. |
Since #15 was prematurely closed, I'm opening a new issue to raise my concerns:
IDS/Development/0.4/ids_04.xsd
Line 55 in 4657203
I did some digging here:
xs:restriction
is a built-in data type of the namespacexs
not an element, right? Therefore it should betype
and notref
in my opinion.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: